The US paradox

Post Reply New Topic

Hey USAmericans. Try to explain this , would you.

I remember that some years ago, one guy tried to transport liquid explosives in his shoes. And the keyword is tried. Ever since everybody has to take their shoes off before entering a plane in the US.

That's not to mention the nude machine or how you cannot have any liquid with you. Yeah liquid.

On the other hand, how many successful shootings do there have to be before guns become a bit harder to get?

I'd much rather abolish TSA, that's the aberration here.

I actually think we have sensible gun laws in place right now, but I guess we could explore more ideas like waiting periods or more extensive background checks.

We do have this funky worded 2nd Amendment thing we constantly argued over. A well regulated "Militia", being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well.... who is the Militia? I think in a country like Switzerland it is very established how everyone is a Citizen Soldier. I suppose in the U.S. it was imagined a Militia could be called up quickly if all citizens were armed.

Maybe the way we should respect the spirit of our 2nd Amendment is similar to the Swiss? What if everyone who wants a real Semi-Auto firearm must at least go through Boot Camp and Military Firearm training? Maybe regular citizens could still get single fire bolt guns or snub nose revolvers if they get a carry permit first?

Do you think the TSA molesting you is acceptable and makes you any safer?

It makes me safer because I won't go through that s**t to get on a plane.

sigh.......................
We have gun control in the US that any gun buyer is reminded of with each purchase. Many have denied a purchase due to failing a NICS check.
What amazes me is that the antis are always jabbering about the need for gun control yet don't know the first thing about the gun laws already in place.
And when the gun control they want is ineffective (and it will be ineffective) they'll cry for more gun control which, of course, will be ineffective.

We have too many traffic fatalities. Let's ban seat belts and airbags.
Too much obesity, too. Let's ban eating utensils.

Heh... I bought just a .22 Remington rifle and was run through a background check.

Still, the situation can be looked at and we can see where things fall through the cracks.

Honestly, I think the best solution is to emulate the Swiss gun culture more or meet it halfway.

In other examples, I hear Germany has an equally strong Hunter and Gun culture held to high standards.

It's really not that great over there. They really do have strict gun laws even though each citizen soldier stores his Stg-90 at home.
The United States has somewhat of a violent culture. It's not alone in this and also not as bad as some like to claim.
The fix isn't attempted control over inanimate objects and it's not sitting around in a circle holding hands and singing Cumbayá, either.
Walk softly and carry a big pistol is the best protection.

Big pistols are heavy.

As for the OP: Do I need to do a break down of ATF form 4473, the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and the FOPA of 1986?

Doesn't that still fulfill the spirit of the 2nd Amendment though? The people as a militia that can repel an invasion or deter a tyranny at home?

That is one of the biggest arguments about the 2nd Amendment rights and why it exists in the first place. Maybe let citizens have some single action weapons for hunting or self defense and only allow real Citizen Soldier/Militia to be qualified for Semi-Auto.

Figure of speech taken from the "walk softly and carry a big stick" expression.
My carry piece is usually a little Kahr CW9


The OP isn't interested in any of that. They never are in threads like this.

If it isn't that bad, why do people need automatic and semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves?

First, no one is defending themselves or attacking others with automatic weapons, they do exist here but are so rare, tightly controlled, and expensive (like $10,000 expensive) that no one is doing anything with them besides shooting up paper and admiring them in safes.
Second, in this country it's a right, so we don't have to prove a need.
I own revolvers, bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, pump rifles, semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic rifles, and they all have different uses and I own them all for different reasons. Why do I carry a semi-automatic pistol rather than a revolver? Because it's lighter, easier to conceal, easier to reload and easier to shoot, not because it's the most powerful firearm I own. Why do I own revolvers then? Because the ones I own chamber powerful cartridges and are exceptionally accurate, just the thing for long range target shooting at the range. Why is it any of anyone's business? Beats the hell out of me.

It's apparent that you don't know very much about guns. Single action is a term applied to some older handgun designs but never to a rifle or shotgun.
The rifle the Swiss solders have is not a semi-auto but select fire assault rifle.
StG-90: Sturmgewehr (storm rifle) model of 1990)

Really, if you feel that the gun control laws here in the US are too lax then move somewhere where they are more to your liking.

It's not that bad but still bad enough to warrant the precaution of being sensibly armed in public.
Where have you seen anyone carrying a full auto anything for self defense in the US?
At least try to get your ducks in a row before taking a crack at these threads.

that it is needed at all is what is weird for many people outside the us.